You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
I am seeking USD 36,000 for six months to complete and validate an ongoing study of how publicly funded science reaches new technological uses. The study follows the same scientific papers into different patent domains and asks whether expansion comes through their earlier users or through different people and organisations. A USD 18,000 minimum would support a four-month validation and release stage.
For research funders, a paper's appearance in another technology is not enough to explain how knowledge travelled. A distinction between continuing users and new users can guide further investigation of translation and access. This project will provide a documented method and evidence about that distinction, without interpreting every patent citation as proof of knowledge transfer.
The 2 October 2026 manuscript traces 380,831 NIH-linked papers and 2,170,814 paper–patent-family use events. Its later-entry analysis includes 663,216 destination-entry cohorts with five years of follow-up. The current results associate more distant technological entry with a modest increase in inventors new to the focal paper's observed history. Results for later reuse are less stable under some restrictions.
The paper and inventor analysis already exist. Organisation-identity and dated-assignee checks remain in progress, and independent semantic validation is not complete. The existing corpus and completed estimates are the starting point. This request supports the documented completion, validation and release stage below, with a work log that records progress during fundraising.
I will finish and reconcile the identity and timing checks, compare estimates on the same observable support, and integrate both favourable and unfavourable sensitivity results into the paper. A persistent assignee identifier is not a historical ownership ledger. The analysis will distinguish identity consistency from evidence of ownership at the time of an invention.
A stratified semantic audit will attempt 200 paper–patent citation pairs, with at least 80 independently assessed by a second reader. The minimum stage covers 80 pairs with 40 double-coded. The audit will preserve the scientific claim, patent context, source availability and the reason for each judgment. Cases without lawful full-text access will remain unavailable; replacement rules and unavailable counts will be reported.
The audit will distinguish background references from explicit discussion of a result or method and from cases whose function cannot be determined. Even an explicit discussion does not by itself establish causal dependence. Sampling weights, disagreement rates and sensitivity to missing full text will delimit what can be inferred from the audit.
The final analysis will keep technological distance, inventor continuity and assignee continuity separate. It will report associations at the appropriate paper and destination levels, preserve ambiguity in identities, and test how the conclusions change under the documented restrictions. The goal is an interpretable map of reuse, not a predetermined claim that a funding programme caused innovation.
Months one and two finalise the audit and unresolved data checks. Months three and four cover source reading, independent coding and revised estimates. Months five and six produce a submission-ready working paper, a methods and limitations report, and code with a permitted derived-data package. A short brief will explain what research funders can and cannot infer from citation pathways. At minimum funding, the smaller audit and a narrower release are completed in four months.
Journal choice and acceptance are not funding milestones. A preprint and permitted research materials will be released on the project schedule. Original proprietary texts or restricted databases will be replaced by identifiers, dictionaries and retrieval instructions in the public package.
This research is already underway and may progress while fundraising continues. The hours and costs below are proposed budgets, not a record of work already performed. Before receiving funds, I will update the completion log and identify any work on this specified stage performed during fundraising. I request that documented research time and direct costs from this stage be eligible for support, including work before disbursement where Manifund explicitly approves it in writing. Earlier completed work is background to this request. I will not charge the same time or expense to another grant. If the stage finishes before funding is available, I will seek approval for retrospective support or revise or close the request; I will not present completed work as still outstanding.
The USD 36,000 request comprises USD 18,000 for 240 hours of my time at USD 75; USD 6,000 for 240 assistant hours at USD 25; USD 3,000 for 60 independent-review hours at USD 50; USD 2,000 for computing and retrieval; USD 1,000 for reproducibility and release; and USD 6,000 for submission and publication costs.
The USD 18,000 minimum comprises USD 9,000 for 120 hours of my time, USD 2,500 for 100 assistant hours, USD 1,000 for 20 independent-review hours, USD 1,000 for computing, USD 500 for release and USD 4,000 for publication costs.
Publication costs are prospective reserves, not journal quotations or a promise of acceptance. I will check institutional coverage and waivers, document actual charges, and seek approval to reallocate or return unused funds. The public working paper and permitted research materials will be released even if journal review continues beyond the project. Compensation figures are gross project costs.
I am Hana Kim, a contract research professor at KAIST's School of Business and Technology Management in South Korea. I hold a PhD in Technology Management, Economics and Policy and a master's degree in medicine from Seoul National University. I will lead the funded work from Korea. Assistants and independent reviewers will be paid from the grant and recruited once support is secured.
Identity ambiguity and unavailable full text may limit the claims. I will preserve ambiguous links, report unavailable audit cases, and compare results on common observable samples. If the evidence does not support a proposed interpretation of knowledge transfer, the paper and methods report will say so.
This is a distinct scientific-reuse study. The NIH records in my proposed AI-checking evaluation supply bounded task source material; that evaluation does not finance this paper-to-patent corpus or its semantic audit. I will keep time, computing and publication charges separate. If more than one proposal receives support, I will agree the sequence and staffing before accepting awards.
I am not currently receiving a separate research grant for the work proposed here. I participate in an institution-administered research institute project supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF). That participation is not presented here as a personal grant award. I will check the allocation of research time and expenses so that any costs covered by the institutional project are not also charged to this grant.
Academic profile: Hana Kim at KAIST BTM